Mathematical proof that post Tennant Doctor Who is no better or worse than it’s ever been:

IMG_2143.PNG

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Mathematical proof that post Tennant Doctor Who is no better or worse than it’s ever been:

  1. First of all: That would be a statistical indicator not a mathematical proof.
    Secondly: What are the parameters of the test and how is the “quality” of the episodes determined.
    And finally: how does this graph even work as a comparison between the Moffat era and the Davis era when it is apparent that only episodes of the Moffat era have been taken into consideration.

  2. Thank you for your comment. I am asssuming it is tongue in check just like my original post. First of all (and I am nervous about getting into a math argument with anyone) for it to be a statistical indicator wouldn’t it need to be presenting some kind of actual data? Secondly the quality the episodes is determined entirely by my own opinion, just like everything else on my blog and yes I know this does not make it mathematical proof, that is kind of the joke. And finally (incidentally you should never start a sentence with ‘and’, it is a connective and as such needs to link clauses in a sentence) this graph is not meant to provide a comparison as the Moffat and Davis era, that it is why it is labeled ‘post Tennat Doctor Who’.

  3. Sorry, I didn’t realize you were being ironic with your post.
    Reading my comment again in that light I may have been a bit harsh.
    I simply have seen to many people using a graph and the word mathematical to shut people with a different point of view up knowing that most people are to insecure when it comes to mathematics.
    And (;)) the part about “and” being a connective is cretainly true, but it does work (for me at least) to accentuate a start of a sentence unrelated to what has been discussed before.
    Although I’m not a native speaker so I probably shouldn’t argue that point.
    As for the graph not being a statistic because it doesn’t feature actual values, that is only true to some degree, because one has to assume that you rated them in relation to others thereby using a sort of index with one episode that is deemed perfect receving a 100 (or 10 or whatever else).
    This way even tough there are no actual values stated the graph was made by data if only by arbitrary values like: “I like that episode but it is not perfect so it gets a score of 78.”
    Lastly the ‘post Tennant Doctor Who’ is after all the Moffat era, while the ‘Tennant and pre Tennant’ of the 2005 series is the Davis era, therefore I assumed you simply phrased it that way to avoid a Davis-Moffat war in the comments while still being clear about your opinion.

    And let me apologize once more for misunderstanding the intentions of your post.
    The irony still escapes me but my sense of humor is rather weird so that may be the reason.
    It quite enjoyed the talk after all.
    Simon

  4. Thanks Simon. Lets be honest, it probably isn’t your sense of humour that is the problem is it, it is mine. Incidentally what do you think of this latest series? I was one of the people who thought it was poor at first but I have totally changed my mind. There have been always been weak episodes, particularly near the start of each run but I think this series has really found it’s feet. That was kind of the point of this post in the first place. Capaldi has been great and Coleman has been superb.

  5. Ironically for me it was the other way around.
    I was really excited about a darker more character centric Who but as the series progressed I have to admit I became more and more annoyed with the writing.
    Capaldi and Coleman are certainly brilliant actors but in my opinon they aren’t given enough to work with.
    While Coleman’s character finally received some actual character after merely being a plotpoint in the 7th season I still think she falls a bit flat compared to characters like Donna or even Rory.
    Capaldi’s Doctor is ingenious especially the way his inner turmoil about being a blood-stained general even tough he only wants to be a simple Doctor was portrayed.
    But in the end I can only marvel at the brilliant acting which I do enjoy while not being able to submerse myself in the story because most of them have become let’s say weird.
    A giant egg as the moon with one girl going against a majority vote for killing it?
    A giant forest which grew overnight to produce oxygen (which is flameable) to stop human extermination by a solar flare?
    A soldier sacrificing himeself for his beloved even tough he sholdn’t have any emotions and of course making this grand speach beforehand?
    For me the stories lately feel to much like they were designed with popularity in mind not written in the sense of creating something new.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s